Qiou87

Well, we are getting the Falkland Islands from Razbam probably some time next year, so you are getting part of what you wish for (Islands that belong to the UK). As to the real UK though, not before a very long time. The scale, urban density... not to mention you need another piece of land to make for interesting scenarios (Norwegian or Swedish coast, and/or Iceland). @VFGiPJP: The GIUK gap idea is more enticing to me, but needs at least a few years of DCS core improvements (naval damage model, naval warfare, submarine warfare, additional NATO and RUS naval assets) to make it a viable place for "Cold war gone hot" scenarios. And it could be probably too big, though depending how you define the GIUK gap and draw the borders of the map there isn't that much landmass and urban density to speak of.

I used a cold start, I am playing the regular (with A2A refueling) campaign. I use the fast alignment like always. Don't sweat it, the mission was fun and completed without a problem, this was just a small improvement suggestion. I know that for my own missions I take a lot of notes, from myself and others who play it, and keep improving them, so I thought I'd give you these pointers. I will try again. My first playthrough I lined up at the touchdown point. Noticing no ATC clearance and suspecting a trigger zone problem I turned around, taxied to the end using the turn area, lined up again and waited 3min accelerating time. Still no clearance. If I can reproduce I will send the track. EDIT: given the file size I sent the track by email. It is just 5min long. I was able to reproduce exactly. I had a good 30sec to enter the runway before 420 took off this time.

Hi @Badger633, Loving the campaign so far. You clearly stepped up your game from the previous two and it shows, I am really enjoying myself. I noticed some small problem in M11, taking off from the airport at Khasab: ATC gives me the full clearance (taxi onto the runway, backtrack and line up & wait for take-off clearance). This is, in fact, dangerous, as the wingman has not taken off at this point. I went a bit fast on taxi just to confirm my suspicion and I could taxi up to the runway entrance before he went past by me to take off. Clearly if I was distracted I would have been crushed by him. Then, as I lined up after taxiing to the end of the runway 01, I waited (accelerated 5min). No take-off clearance. Finally I pushed the throttles and got the clearance about 100m into my take-off roll (approximately once I passed taxiway Bravo). My advice to solve this: - Initial clearance: Ford 110, tower, you are cleared to taxi via Bravo to Runway 01. Hold short Runway 01 (the readback from Ford needs to include "hold short runway 01" as this is a very crucial instruction, again for realism). - Once the wingman has taken off (can use a trigger zone at the end of the rwy for that probably, unit in zone), clearance to enter the active, backtrack to the end of the runway, line-up and wait. - once the player is at the end of the runway (another trigger zone with a timer to give some time for the 180° and line-up), give the take-off clearance. Off course that trigger zone could be a little bit bigger to allow some room (not everyone will want to backtrack all the way to the area dedicated for the 180°, after all we are in a fighter jet not a big airliner). - alternatively once the runway is clear of the wingman, there is no need to line-up and wait. You can directly give clearance to backtrack and take-off at the pilot's discretion. I just thought this would make for a more realistic flow. I really like that you changed things around on this mission, having the player land at an airfield (a private joke in my squadron is about the F/A-18's "antisquid" system, of course "Anti-skid" that you need to activate when landing on a runway - those squids are so slimey they make you swerve all around when you land . But since this is a civilian airport it should follow civilian ATC procedures, even a bit simplified, and not give me clearance to crash into my wingman.

Operation Lion's Shield - Sortie #8 This mission requires the map DCS:Syria. You will fly along the Israel-Lebanon border and protect israeli cities from strikes by Hezbollah. Take off from Rosh Pina, fly north to Kyriat Shmona and await instructions from Mission control. I made this mission based on real life news but this is still fictional. The mission is fully voiced by humans. The target is for you and up to 3 of your friends to have fun, events are realistic but I am not aiming for 100% realism. It can be played solo but will be challenging. More than 4 can play but it will be too easy. Slots for Mi-24P, UH-1H, SA 342 and Mi-8 are available. Threads are manpads, ZU-23, RPG and small arms. Download link Your constructive feedback is welcome to improve the mission, or maybe build upon it and create a follow-up later on.

Operation Lion's Shield - Sortie #8 This mission requires the map DCS:Syria. You will fly along the Israel-Lebanon border and protect israeli cities from strikes by Hezbollah. Take off from Rosh Pina, fly north to Kyriat Shmona and await instructions from Mission control. I made this mission based on real life news but this is still fictional. The mission is fully voiced by humans. The target is for you and up to 3 of your friends to have fun, events are realistic but I am not aiming for 100% realism. It can be played solo but will be challenging. More than 4 can play but it will be too easy. Slots for Mi-24P, UH-1H, SA 342 and Mi-8 are available. Threads are manpads, ZU-23, RPG and small arms. Download link Your constructive feedback is welcome to improve the mission, or maybe build upon it and create a follow-up later on.

Thank you for checking this. It is very random, on my big mission where I wanted to use this I cannot find any waypoint position that lets the 47D sling load. There is definitely a specific problem to that helicopter since others are doing the sling loading perfectly, irrespective of WP placement. I attach the mission where I wanted to use CH-47Ds for sling loading ; you can replace the SH-60A over Andersen AFB with CH-47D and see that they don't pick up the cargo anymore (as opposed to the SH-60A). Can you try your solution on it? I tried several placements for the WP and it never works for me. Operation_Pumba_Shield_1.0.miz

Didn't you say you were taking a break? I would enjoy a harder difficulty in some instances, although I also want to point out that I appreciate your campaigns right now because they don't require me to die-and-retry multiple times to complete missions. There is some challenge already (mostly because I can be quite thick when it comes to systems, and I don't fly the Hornet as often as I used to). For mission 8, an idea would be to replace the F-5's with 4x F-4E or F-14A (to remain within what Iran actually operates) a little further away like 25-30nm but they have Fox1's and we would be only carrying 1x AIM120 and 6x 9X, meaning we have to survive somehow until the merge while avoiding Fox1's. Could be interesting.

I played that mission yesterday (felt kind of weird to me for some reason you only can understand @Badger633 ). I noticed one small bug still: when flying away from the airport where 410 "lands", I get locked by an SA-6. It lasts for maybe 15sec. I was flying over the mountain range, headed for the tanker at this point (standard campaign, not EZ A2A). Feels like an ED/DCS core bug to me, for sure. I just thought I should point it out to see if maybe you can do something about it on your end (like deactivate all SA-6s once the player is headed back). I was definitely not in an area where the SA-6 should have been able to acquire a lock on me. I know there is such a bug in multiplayer (where your RWR lights up with locks because some other player is being targeted, even very far away from you) but never experienced this in SP. Really good mission though. Those poor F-5Es made a very nice fireworks display after liberating the Batillus, I've never downed 4 planes so quickly. And the weather/time combo when taking off was truly breathtaking, nice job on that.

Hi, The CH-47D seems to be unable to sling load cargo. I tried several helicopters, all work to sling load a basic cargo box except the CH-47D. See a very simple mission file and corresponding track attached. The UH-60A is placed alongside to compare how the sling load should work. It's presence does not affect the CH-47D (I attach a track with only the CH47D to prove it). CH47D no sling load.trk CH47D no sling load_UH60A.trk Test_CH47D.miz

JF-17 was developed as joint project between China and Pakistan. It is also marginally used by Burma and Nigeria in small numbers. China does not use it, it is an export plane for them. ED refused to touch the Black Sea area because this is a hot area for Russia. Most of ED's staff is in Russia, I respect that. Kashmir has nothing to do with Russia, and ED has nothing to do directly with Pakistan and India. I am not asking for a map with a big flag on it, or even borders drawn. This is an interesting area, full of history, real life skirmishes and a lot of potential for "what if" scenarios using existing and announced modules. Why do we allow Cyprus in DCS since it is contested (the northern part is not recognized by anyone outside of Turkey)? Why is it fine to request a Taiwan strait map when China refuses to recognize its independance and this is clearly one of the hottest contested areas in the 21st century? What makes Kashmir a "no-go" area, but not the others I mentioned? The only valid reason would be Russia, as I explained, and it is not an excuse for Kashmir. To be clear: I put Vietnam as my #1. But I don't understand why you are so focus against Kashmir, in all the suggestions made here. Many others suggest maps without sea (both Hornet and Tomcat know how to land on a strip, just activate the anti-skid ), other contested areas are present in existing and suggested maps...

That's a moot point, this is just a sim, making a map is not a political stance. We have almost exclusively maps of contested areas, this is actually what is needed in a military sim. Cyprus has been added recently to Syria... I feel like Kashmir is a beautiful region, with gorgeous mountains for helicopter ops for example, and many modules we have fit there - including the underrated JF-17. So why not? That's fair, Afghanistan has been suggested many times though. Don't see any sea there either. Compared to Afghanistan, Kashmir is smaller (=more feasible with current engine limitations), and more diverse with green areas, high mountains...

Vietnam would be awesome. Haven't seen anyone suggesting Kashmir.

We are in essence, saying the same thing, except you just don't want to understand how the world works somehow. If ED starts a project, doesn't mean they finish it. If I start a marathon tomorrow, does it automatically mean that I will finish it? Just because ED starts this project, doesn't mean it will one day be finished and released. Sooo many game projects have been started, changed, rebooted, shelved, restarted again, modified... There is a difference between starting a development and releasing a finished product. This is where our opinions seem to diverge.

Just my 2 cents about coms on mission 3: honestly it was so low in terms of audio level that I couldn’t be sure what was said. As a background/immersion thing, I really liked this idea. I actually took this for one of my multiplayer missions, and found the source of the audio from mission 3, but not so many other choices. It’s not like the Navy is handing out Marshall live coms on the internet… I think they are a nice touch. The campaign does say it is aiming more for immersion than realism. Agreed, it would be better to have case I, but I prefer to have this instead of nothing. Agreed on the deck instructions, however as a player I appreciate that someone is actually telling me where to launch. I know it is not realistic, but we don’t have 3 hour briefings before each flight to memorize these details. Would be even better from the air boss, but still nice to have this.

Companies work on many projects. Many of them never become commercial products. I don't understand how, given the history of all modules that were teased/announced/etc. and never actually sold, you can think otherwise. But hey, maybe you are just a candid optimist, and I respect that. We actually need more optimists. To become confirmed, a module has to be far enough along its development that the developer is 100% that they will sell it so they will officially announce it. This hasn't happened yet for Mig-29A. Otherwise, it is just a project, not a confirmed module. Yes, Mig-29A is going to be a project for ED. Will it become a module? We cannot be sure just yet (but I hope it will!).

Purchased as well! And now with the heat out here, it will feel very immersive as well, just like sitting in the cockpit in the gulf...

I don't, personnally, consider the Mig-29 as an officially confirmed module: it was not published in the DCS newsletter, on the website, or in an official ED promotional video. This is, to me, the big difference between an announcement (like AH-64, with an estimated date of arrival, etc.) and a "yeah, this is one of our projects, we will try to do it" -> which can sometimes translate to nothing if they encounter a roadblock, legal or otherwise. This is not against ED, anyone in any field of work can have an unexpected thing that kills a project before it is finished, or maybe just puts it in the freezer until conditions change. Now back to the topic of this post, because this is not a topic called "ED please make the Mig-29" even if we railroaded it. The Su-75 Checkmate, which this topic is about (at least that's my assumption) is a prototype design shown as a mockup, something that doesn't fly and is not finished (UAC said so: first flight 2023, so they need approx. 2 more years before it is advanced enough to fly). It is also more of a marketing campaign than just a defence project: they publish everything about it in english to find customers to help make it a reality. In terms of DCS module potential, this is both good and bad : good because a plane developed for export has probably more chances to be made available in DCS than a top-secret project like Su-57. The Su-75 is not going to be the backbone of the Russian defence, as far as I can tell. It is a bit similar, in a way, to the JF-17 program that China developed for Pakistan and that we are able to have in DCS World. The bad: well the jet is not flying, I think UAC gave a rough date of 2026 for operational use. Even if this schedule is somehow kept (show me a military program on time), and some developer gets all the info needed for a module, we will be in the 2030s. Fine by me, I prefer older cockpits. I'm extremely excited for the Mig-29, if and when ED makes it a reality. As a plane enthousiast, I think Russian jets are awesome. Like @Dragon1-1 says, very very modern jets are less fun in the sim we have right now.

There an initial 4,6GB update, then a further 23GB in my case. Probably the maps, but I won't complain, I'm very happy to see Ugra continue to improve Syria and finally go back to Normandy. Update might be smaller for those who don't own those maps. The new blue SAM system will provide some variety, I'm eager to see how it stacks up against the Patriot we have.

Not to mention MP and repeated missions don't log in the game pilot log. If you fly a training dynamic mission 50x for example, it is counted 1x (at least that's the impression I got when my log wasn't increasing ingame). If you fly in MP it doesn't register in your pilot log. That's how I get 2x more flight hours in my personal pilot log that I keep outside DCS, compared to the ingame log. As far as I remember, the pilot log we have is a carry-over from LockOn. Improvements would certainly be very nice ; outside tools are all excellent, but they are not an excuse for not improving the core of the sim. There are probably more pressing issues, but if ED decided to improve the pilot log in the game, I wouldn't mind it. I like to see where I've been most, what time I have on what airframe, etc.

Do you speak for Icedvenom? Also, this is the DCS Wishlist. If you want to speak about real life aviation, there is a sub-forum for that. Oh so we have a 1980's russian jet in DCS in high fidelity? I'm very sorry, I was not aware of it. Where is it so I can buy it? (If you are referring to the rumor about a Mig-29A from late 1970's / early 1980's, it is still a dream at this point, nowhere near confirmed let alone available. I'll believe it when I see it.)

We can't even get a 1980's high-fidelity russian jet, and somehow you'd think - nay, dream - that a prototype jet not even revealed could be added in DCS. Maybe in the next Ace Combat, but in DCS, I'd say not in our lifetime. Which is fine, nothing is there in the sim to support a 2020+ battlefield, so what is the point?

No problem! Thanks for taking the time to check out my suggestions. I know other campaign makers and they all say the same thing: the IA and especially patches are a nightmare for you because something that works in 2.7.3 might not work the same in 2.7.4, etc. In my case nothing was broken, I was able to complete the missions successfully on the first try. Another thing where the AI is annoying, and really you cannot do anything yourself (this is a DCS core problem) : the wingman on landing really really needs to be told to RTB before approaching the runway. During the course of this campaign, I have had the wingman crash on short final before the runway, collide into me (including on M25 where he litterally took my gear out and I belly-crashlanded on the runway because the collision happened 50ft above the runway), land next to me then weirdly continue to "drift" straight into the grass at the end of the runway... and sometimes he did as expected and landed in formation then taxied to the apron. Talk about a crazy suicidal wingman!

Hi @SorelRo, I just finished the campaign yesterday, had a lot of fun. As I said in another thread: this jet is fun, it is simple yet difficult to master, and very rewarding. I appreciate that you dedicated time to make a campaign for it. I have a couple of suggestions to improve the final two missions: - M24 (escort C130s then the L-39): I reached the home base at the same time as the C-130s. It took them 15min to land, after which the L-39 finally landed. At first it was fun to maintain formation in a circle, but seriously, it is a bit long. You could easily solve this by making the C-130s return to base 15min later so the L-39 has time to land (and then the player can land as well) - M25 (escort C130 of dignitaries): rules of engagement are difficult for the AI wingman : he sees red, he fires. Would it be possible to switch the Mig-23s to neutral once they are identified by Overlord as friendly? My wingman fired 2x Fox2 on them when we merged, and he kept telling me that we had bandits. Luckily he failed to shoot them down. Another important point: the Mig-23s not only paint the player aircraft with their radar, they actually lock it. In many doctrines that I am aware of, this is considered a hostile manoeuvre and in this context (fresh ceasefire), I really thought they were engaging me. I evaded and got on their six, then realized that they were only escorting us. If you can find a way for them to NOT lock onto my aircraft and make my RWR light up... They do it twice, once on the initial merge, once when I followed the C130 down towards Sochi.

Honestly for me the map runs the same as Channel or Syria, in VR (G2, 3080) - it means fine, 45fps. You probably need to adjust your settings, or wait a bit for ED to optimize it - which is something they said they would do. With SS 100%, high settings and no MSAA, it runs just fine here.

Any ship would be good at this point. Outside of a few modern ships, DCS is sorely lacking in ships, and especially in the WWII era. I know it probably takes a while, but still. However these 1980's battleships are a bit weird, don't you think? Battleships were already outclassed and outdated in WWII, I don't see their significance especially in the western maritime doctrine in the 1980's. I would also prefer a WWII version first, for the Marianas WWII map (and against Yamato).